Shark Attack - your thoughts?

[krooton]

How does that make any difference?

Bird species that require nests in your logic are not natural. It's a made tool. Vital for survival.

No, nests are vital for reproduction, not survival at an individual level.

 

[MrRoper]

How does that make any difference?

Bird species that require nests in your logic are not natural. It's a made tool. Vital for survival.

It is suggested that it is a learnt skill, rather than being "Natural"

 

[Vince]

After killing the sharks can we kill the Hippy's?

I approve, Cartman would approve, why the hell not.

 

[Glaucus]

No, nest are vital for reproduction, not survival at an individual level.

Oh god. With out nests the species would die. It is very much vital for survival.
Birds aren't the only ones to build and use tools. Loads of species do. Ants, termites, burrow animals. What's the water creatures that lie on their back and use a stone to smash open their food.

 

[MrRoper]

Is Coastal areas not the sea.
It's like saying crocodiles natural ground isn't water. As they can't survive at deep see. But I bet not one of you would say that.

I just think that when people say "Our natural territory is the sea" it implies more than just hunting around the first 5-6 foot.

but you are right, we will have eaten fish and we will have hunted them

 

[oweneades]

Humans are not sharks natural food. More often than not shark attacks are from mistaken identity. Great Whites are opportunists and will take a bite out of pretty much anything to see if it is edible. The so called 'investigative bite' can obviously have devastating effects, occassionally resulting in the death of the victim. Most sharks will take a bite, realise we are not there normal food and move on. This however is not always the case. A GWS prefers the soft fatty tissue of a seal to human flesh which is very boney in comparison. It has nothing to do with whether we taste good or not!

Shark attacks are most likely on the rise due to over fishing and mans ever growing intest in aqua sports which are bringing us closer together.

However, I find it deplorable that we see fit to go hunting an animal that is doing what it does naturally. The sea is not our domain, never has been. Sure it's our hunting ground but in this case the hunter became the hunted. The guy knew the perils of his actions, knew the dangers of spear fishing in known shark territory but still put himself in great danger despite this. Sadly he is reaping the consequences of his actions and while I sympathise, you can hardly blame the shark for doing what it does naturally. It sensed distress, it smelt the blood, it killed. Most victims of shark attacks who live to tell the tale will not blame the shark so why do the authorities see fit to go on a 'man-hunt', especially when in this case they would clearly have no idea which shark killed the diver?

By the same respect of some of the ridiculous arguements put forward in this thread: If a diver went swimming in the waters off Seal island during the seal birthing season (when GWS are regularly filmed jumping from the water) and the diver happened to be killed. Should we then go and slaughter all of the sharks in the vicinity? No we shouldn't and wouldn't, why? Because the diver was being irresponsible. I see little difference from this example to the fateful experience the spear fisherman has had.

A shark is no more of a risk than mans stupidity and ignorance.

TBH I move we delete every post in this thread bar this one.

 

[WILD9]

Its sad, I hate the idea of killing anything but if the shark really is statistically more likely to be involved in another human attack after this I don't see what other choice we have to mitigate the risk of more human deaths?

Edit:
If there isn't any statistical evidence of increased risk of further human attacks by this shark I agree whole heatedly with w3bbo, killing it in some sort of revenge crusade would be terrible.

 

[doofer]

By that logic, sea birds natural hunting ground isn't the sea. They can't breath, can't survive long or go deep.

But I'm pretty sure if already gone through all this.
Do why is it their natural hunting ground and not ours?

 

[Sunbed]

Not read the thread but I think being "eaten by a shark" is a pretty cool way to go down in the history books. Yeh dying is sad etc but you've got to take a positive out of it somewhere

 

[kwerk]

Dying of drowning after stabbing a shark to death with a diving knife would be a cooler way to go.

 

[LiE]

I wonder if he died from the initial attack or from panic/drowning.

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

My heads gonna explode.

At first I was with AcidHell because nvidiot and Asim18 just made things up that AcidHell never said but then I read Krooton and Mr Roper and they make more sense.

 

[Glaucus]

Mr Roper and they make more sense.

he agrees with me in the end. Once he realised I was talking about coastal region and not deep sea. Although also said its a pointless discussion.

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

he agrees with me in the end. Once he realised I was talking about coastal region and not deep sea. Although also said its a pointless discussion.

Yeah but you spoilt it when you said as soon as babies are born they can swim the English Channel while hunting for sharks

 

[Glaucus]

 

[speeduk]

So this is what GD is like these days lol.

 

[Jimbeam3678]

TBH I move we delete every post in this thread bar this one.

Agreed! Crying shame this shark is getting hunted having seen sharks in the wild it surprised me greatly that they are very shy and tend to avoid human contact at all costs.

Clearly spear fishing in a known shark area band alone is just plain daft.

I've been to Rottnest, dived it and had awesome fun. But you get warned of the dangers.

Cloud cover/dusk is when sharks prefer to feed

 

[Glaucus]

I've been to Rottnest, dived it and had awesome fun. But you get warned of the dangers.

It's a stunning area and teaming with life. Spent a week there snorkelling of most of the bays. Such an awesome week, but didn't see any sharks, probably not far enough of shore.